Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 334051,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/334051/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 205,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "different are crops from plants which are defined in the Plant Varieties Act? Why then do we need to have a different Bill talking about crops when we have a Plant Varieties Act? If you look at the objects and purposes of the Act, Clause 3 says that the object is to accelerate the growth and development of agriculture in general, enhance productivity and incomes of farmers and the rural populations, improve investment climate--- It goes on and on. It goes back to the same point I was talking about in relation to the Bill that will come for Third Reading. Could the Minister explain why they are different and why they should not be in the same Bill? Again, this Bill makes reference to the Bill presuming we will pass it. I will make reference to it as an Act. I think in terms of legislative drafting, we could close our eyes to it but I do not think this is in order. If that collapses, the premise upon which the Minister anchors this fails. However, I think that will pass. I do not think it is really substantive according to me. I want the Minister to look at it. Again, I have said that I am neither opposing nor supporting. I would like the Minister to clarify that. On Clause 4, there is something missing in my understanding. It says that the national Government and county governments shall be guided by following principles in the management and administration of agricultural land. It also says in part “a” “has a communal function”. What has a communal function? I think that one is maybe for purposes of correction because there is a word missing there. I would like to propose that we think through the principles we have provided. I can see that one of the principles we have provided is on sustainable use of land. We should think seriously about the principle because the other parts under “c” and “d” do not appear as principles to me. I would like to propose that some of the principles we should add are preservation of indigenous knowledge on preservation of crops or value like the traditional crops that get extinct because we have new varieties that are not hardy. That is why we are having challenges. As a principle, that should be added. Gender and child responsive use of land should also be added as a principle. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would also want the Minister to clarify in reference to Clause 6; you have referred us to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. The Authority, on behalf of the national Government, shall be responsible for licensing and charging of levies on scheduled crops. I have looked at the Schedule and I really do not see that as a role of the national Government. Could the Minister, please, just clarify; given that if you are not careful these are areas that may create tension between national and devolved governments. Once you have the Senate coming in--- Some of these Bills may come back for review; Ideally they should have been brought when we have both Houses sitting. So, could the Minister just clarify why she is of the view that, that is a role of the national Government? Again, the same applies to Clause 7(2). The Minister also in her statement suggested that one of the roles should be on the issue of land use management. I do not know if it is the body that is set up here, or the body that you are proposing in the Agriculture Bill; I want to know how she will want to link that with urban planning because that is also missing. How do we link up that with urban planning because even if you have a very good plan that looks---- It is really good to look at how we will manage our agricultural land, but we should not link it up with the urban planning as it will frustrate the work that we are thinking through."
}